Middle class remains target in Battle of the Cliff

Friday, January 4, 2013

The middle class dodged most of the bullets from the Battle of the Cliff, but the guns from the promised negotiations on spending cuts are squarely aimed at us. The president has expressed a willingness to reduce spending on popular programs like Medicare and he’s still talking about “entitlement reform,” which means cuts to Social Security. Republican lawmakers are salivating at the prospect of getting these cuts.

Where in all this chatter is a mention of cuts to the bloated Pentagon budget? Numerous reports in the last couple years document that $100 billion a year could be safely cut from military spending, with hundreds of costly overseas bases as the chief culprits of overspending. Cutting $100 billion a year would just about eliminate the federal deficit.

Effective job creation is the best long-term solution to the budget deficit, and studies document that military spending is the least effective way to create jobs. Education, health care, renewable energy, and yes, even tax cuts create more jobs than giving money hand over fist to the war profiteers, as we do now. Military spending has almost doubled in the last decade. It’s no coincidence that jobs have declined.

Let’s flip this script: first cut the Pentagon. Remember, Social Security has added not one dime to our deficit.

JANE SWIFT DUGDALEBryn Mawr

Proposed change is a ruseSince 1992, presidential elections have seen Pennsylvanians reject Republican candidates and their policies they deemed detrimental to them personally and to the nation. Republicans are recognizing that their policies are in the minority, and they are now stooping to new lows in their attempt to rig the rules of the game in their favor. Witness the hurried attempt to require photo identification for the recent presidential election. Now, their latest effort is the plan by Pennsylvania Republican Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi to award electoral votes (20 in Pennsylvania) proportionately rather than “winner takes all” which is the current national norm.

On the surface, the proposal seems reasonable — in Pennsylvania, if a candidate was to win 51 percent of the public vote, he would get 50 percent of the electoral votes (10 votes), rather than 100 percent, or 20 votes, as is currently the law.

However, the proposal is a ruse and would represent a fair distribution of electoral votes only if all 50 states use an identical system.

Republicans, recognizing it is unlikely they will win future presidential elections in Pennsylvania, see the Pileggi plan as a way to realize some electoral votes rather than all going to a probable Democratic winner. Pileggi’s plan is not only not fair, but it is a scam that must be stopped in its tracks. Gov. Corbett and the state Legislature must hear from you now, before Sen. Pileggi’s proposal moves forward.